Comments

If it's "the pair were using a method which is not allowed by the rules of the competition" (the most literal reading), then the offenders get table score or Average Minus, whichever is worse (and might or might not also get a PP on top of that depending on whether the pair were expected to know that the method was illegal). So that'd be 990 or Av-, whatever is worse, for the offenders.

If it's "the score was adjusted as a rectification of a Laws breach" (the more common scenario), there's no reason why you wouldn't keep whatever adjustment you came up with on the offender's side (unless the result without the adjustment is worse). If that's an adjustment from 6NT to 3NT, then you should still be doing that even if 6NT happens to make (especially if 6NT happens to make!), even if the reason for that is the opponent's screwing up. The non-offenders get table score rather than the adjusted score but this is a special case for extremely serious errors; in general, if you're adjusting scores, you want to give people the adjusted score except in very rare cases. Revoking is the sort of very rare case in which a non-offending side can end up stuck with the table score even though the score was adjusted.

However, I think you're missing something here: when a serious error occurs, the side who makes it takes any score loss from the error itself, but not from the original infraction. When adjusting scores, we're supposed to predict what "would have happened" in the correct contract. Presumably here there's a bidding infraction which means that the bidding should have stopped in 3NT. On this hand, it sounds like the adjusted result should by default therefore be 3NT+2. The non-offending side's revoke means that they don't get -460 (the normal adjusted score here). However, it doesn't mean they're stuck with -990 either. In this case, they get relief from the opponent's contract, as it was reached via an infraction; so the adjusted contract is 3NT. They don't get relief from their own revoke, though, so the score imposed on the non-offending side is -490 (i.e. they're being adjusted to 3NT+3; it would be 3NT+2 without the revoke).

So to summarise, I'd impose a symmetrical 3NT+3 on both sides (assuming we're talking about something like the use of UI to reach 6NT).

Is there any room for consideration of the mental attitude of the NOS? In that they may be 'upset' by blatant use of UI etc and thus loose concentration as a direct consequence of the offending actions leading to the lack of purposeful investment in the hand and the subsequent revoke? Particularly if there was contention at the table over the reserving ones rights or calling the director, or if the NOS are less experienced?

I suppose you could issue an additional DP to the OS, if their actions have caused distress to the opponents. But I can't think of any reason to make allowances for such. (In fact the law (12B2) specifically states the director cannot award an adjusted score on grounds of severeness or advantageous)

74A1

A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause
annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of
the game.

The fact that the 6NT bid wasn't doubled implied that there was a chance that the NOS thought it would make.

I don't see how this could be a double shot, though, because the NOS didn't have any alternative options. (They're allowed to play the contract the opponents freely bid to in the hope of defeating it, regardless of what that contract is.) It doesn't make sense to penalise someone for taking a double shot if they have no reasonable option but to take the double shot.

@Tag said:
Sorry, Gordon, could you explain, please. I interpreted it to suggest exactly the opposite. What have I gotten wrong?

We were told that they reached 6NT (over 3NT) only after illegal bidding, so rectifying the infraction (per 12C1e) takes us back to 3NT.

The non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by revoking but when determining an adjusted score, the TD may only consider results from legal outcomes (12C1c), i.e. stopping in 3NT.

Putting these together would seem to take us back to 3NT+3 for each side.

IMHO, the key words are damage, and consequence (of rectifying its
infraction).

First for NOS, as the Expected score (the score that the NOS "should have reached" without the self-inflicted damage) is better than the Normal score (the score that would be allotted to the OS), there is no damage.

Second for the OS, as the Expected score is the highest score, as here, and the Table score the lowest one, then there is no consequent damage. In a few words the damage - revoke - is unrelated to the infraction and not a consequent of the infraction. The expected consequence of being in 6NT, is being one down!

Essentially, you seem to be saying that the OS didn't gain from the infraction but only from the carelessness of the opponents and that the NOS didn't lose out from the infraction but from their own carelessness.

This doesn't seem right, given that the infraction created the situation of being in 6NT. I'm clearly not understanding something here.

The 6NT contract didn't per se give the OS an advantage, since it should go off. If it makes through simple poor defence then the TD rolls it back to 3NT+3.

If it makes though a serious error by the NOS (one unrelated to being in 6NT or any other aspect of the bidding irregularity) then the NOS have just inflicted 6NT-making on themselves.

Is this what's being suggested?

Yes sir

If – on the other hand – declarer does not need the suit in which A and K are missing and can (always) make his contract on the given lead, there is no case for Serious Error, and it is a (normal, balanced) score adjustment, 3 NT+3 for both sides.

The OS gets rolled back to 3NT, making 6 because of the revoke, per Law 12 C 1 (e) (i). Score 3NT+3.
The NOS does not get any relief because all its damage is self inflicted, per Law 12 C 1 (e) (ii), so they get the table score, 6 NT=.

@StevenG said:
If we have the same situation without the revoke, but OS have 12 tricks on top unless NOS find a specific lead, which they don't, do NOS (who haven't committed an irregularty) get -990?

Not finding a killing lead is not the same as a revoke. The latter is 'an extremely serious error', the former is a matter of play.
In the situation described by you, assuming that the UI is established, I would assign a score of 3NT+3 to both sides. The NOS have not 'contributed to their own damage by an extremely serious error', they have been damaged by the OS reaching a contract in an irregular manner and are entitled to relief.

But then you're saying that under normal circumstances the NOS are defending 3NT, but, if and only if, they make a serious error, they are defending 6NT. That doesn't seem logical - they have still been damaged by opponents reaching a contract in an irregular manner.

We do seem to have differing opinions on this. Some suggest that the revoke should lead to the NOS suffering 6NT-making. Some suggest that the contract should be rolled back to 3NT+3 regardless of the revoke, since 6NT should never have been bid.

The key point perhaps is that the offending side reached a bad contract. Therefore the NOS were not really damaged, until by their own serious error the bad contract was allowed to make. This argues for the NOS to suffer 6NT=.

The part that is troubling is that the initial offenders have got away with a good score since even 3NT+3 is an excellent result.

There is no reason why the offenders should not get a good score. They are getting a less good score (3N+3) than they would have done (6N).

The concern is: should the revoke in the 6NT contract be applied in the 3NT contract.

"(b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as
possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred."

(e) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non‐offending side has contributed to its own
damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling
action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:
(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the
consequence of rectifying its infraction.
(ii) The non‐offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is selfinflicted.

Can we argue that a revoke would probably have occurred had the opponents resided in 3NT? probably not.

I may be wrong (often am), but I think we rule back to 3NT+2 for the OS, 3NT+3 for the NOS (The NOS get the benefit of ruling the contract back to 3NT - the self-inflicted damage is one trick for the revoke.)

Of course we have to consider

(c) An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of
potential results, but only outcomes that could have been achieved in a legal manner
may be included.

MAking the NOS suffer playing in 6NT is including an outcome that could not have been achieved in a legal manner.

I agree with that assessment and would likely rule the same, weejonnie.

There is one small point, though, if the TD allows the NOS to have the bad result from playing in 6NT and revoking, he's not giving them an assigned adjusted score but simply allowing the table result to stand for them. Thus, I guess, this discussion.